History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c34.s1.63

v3.c34.s1.63

"When he (Bhoja) became a brother of Indra (died) and the kingdom was troubled and its lord was submerged, his relative Udayāditya became king who acted like Varāha (boar-incarnation) in lifting up this earth, troubled as it was by kings such as Karṇa and Karṇāṭa mingling like great oceans." Here clearly the Karṇāṭa king is not referred to as a friend. This incident has not been understood from the beginning, Kielhorn starting the theory that it was Bhoja himself who was troubled in his last days by Karṇa. It clearly appears from the words "when Bhoja died" used here, as also from the wording in the Udepur Praśasti that the trouble arose after the death of Bhoja. The trouble probably arose by an invasion of Karṇa of Cheḍi son of Gāṅgeya who probably took advantage of Bhoja's death to retrieve the glory of Cheḍi sullied by Gāṅgeya's defeat. Jayasiṃha son of Bhoja a weak prince fled to Kalyāṇa to seek help from Someśvara and he forgetting his hereditary enmity and perhaps to oppose the growing power of Cheḍi lent him assistance and replaced him on the throne of Malwa. It is to this instalment of Jayasiṃha son of Bhoja that the verse in Vikramāṅkacharita III refers. Unfortunately the name of the Malwa king is not given in this verse स मालवेन्दुं शरणप्रविष्टमकण्टके स्थापयति स्वराज्ये ॥ Vik. III which mentions merely a Malwa king (Malavendu). But he could neither have been, Bhoja himself nor Udayāditya, Karṇa must have come again and driven the weak Jayasiṃha again and the unfortunate king is no more heard of (This is suggested by the word 'Magnasvāmini' of the Nagpur record). It was from this trouble of the two great armies of the north and the south which like oceans meeting in Malwa sub-merged the kingdom that Udayāditya by his valour alone rescued the country (See also Ep. Ind, XIX p. 108 महाकलहकल्पान्ते यस्योदाम भिराशुगैः । कति नोन्मूलितास्तङ्गन धूम्रतः कटकोल्बणाः ॥. Merutuṅga has commenced this mischief but the inscriptions of the time and Vikramāṅkacharita of Bilhaṇa when properly construed clearly prove his version to be untrue and imaginary.